Starship Asterisk*

sallyseaver wrote:
Dear HiYoSilver,
Thank you very much for your understanding, encouragement and the interesting article.
Have you seen the GE Commercial: New Ideas are Scary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmQvc6tB1o?

Although I do not accept the anti-matter solution to dark energy, I enjoyed getting the link and learning about this idea. I can see why people would want to explore it.

I wonder what you will think of my theory.

Thanks again,
Sally

Hi Sally ..I'm thankful you asked my opinion, it causes me to consider more deeply than I would have.
I can't consciously remember having heard of mass vortex before, though my subconscious says 'yes you have heard of it,' and I looked at some information, and began thinking I may eventually have an inkling of understanding, but then I ran into rigid body and irrotational, and I knew it would take a VERY LONG study to begin to have sufficient understanding to begin to comment.
However, in my reading following your question I found it interesting that Einstein's E=MCsquared seems to have an alternative in Ec=MCcubed .. https://books.google.ca/books?id=mgYYDQ ... ry&f=false, which indicates to me that sometimes I seem to be on a right track as I suggested in this forum years back that Einstein's equation should PERHAPS be corrected to E=MCcubed. In general, I'm more interested in the more easily understood basics of cosmology than physics, though some will say 'physics IS the basis of cosmology, and will be partly correct, though we eventually come to the question what is the basis or origin of physics, which for a time seemed to be mathematics, but then non-locality showed up.
I sincerely wish you luck, Sally, opening the mind to possibilities is an amazingly beautiful process.

HiYoSilver wrote:...I suggested in this forum years back that Einstein's equation should PERHAPS be corrected to E=MCcubed.

If that were the case, our universe would not exist in a way that allowed us to exist and contemplate the question.

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote:...I suggested in this forum years back that Einstein's equation should PERHAPS be corrected to E=MCcubed.

If that were the case, our universe would not exist in a way that allowed us to exist and contemplate the question.

Perhaps we do not exist and contemplate as we think we do.

sallyseaver wrote:
Dear HiYoSilver,

Have you seen the GE Commercial: New Ideas are Scary? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfmQvc6tB1o?

Sally

Thanks for that link, Sally, I watched the video, it was beautiful.

HiYoSilver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote:...I suggested in this forum years back that Einstein's equation should PERHAPS be corrected to E=MCcubed.

If that were the case, our universe would not exist in a way that allowed us to exist and contemplate the question.

Perhaps we do not exist and contemplate as we think we do.

If by "we" you refer to yourself, perhaps. I know how I exist and how I contemplate. And I know that E=mc² is a tested relationship, such that the exponent is either two, or a number fractionally close to two.

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: If that were the case, our universe would not exist in a way that allowed us to exist and contemplate the question.

Perhaps we do not exist and contemplate as we think we do.

If by "we" you refer to yourself, perhaps. I know how I exist and how I contemplate. And I know that E=mc² is a tested relationship, such that the exponent is either two, or a number fractionally close to two.

In any case .. investigations within these discussions turn up interesting tidbits .. like Einstein being predated by two years in publishing E=MC2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/ ... orycarroll Even more interesting,the first publisher of the equation was not a physicist or mathematician, but an agronomist .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

Were De Pretto's academic credentials responsible, despite his discovery, for his near obscurity in the history of science?

HiYoSilver wrote:
In any case .. investigations within these discussions turn up interesting tidbits .. like Einstein being predated by two years in publishing E=MC2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/ ... orycarroll Even more interesting,the first publisher of the equation was not a physicist or mathematician, but an agronomist .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

Were De Pretto's academic credentials responsible, despite his discovery, for his near obscurity in the history of science?

P.S. I'm not maligning Einstein .. but "A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci." The research was of course De Pretto's equation.

Is one aspect of genius being able to take the works of many others and collect them into an understandable form? Should Einstein have done more to have De Pretto recognized? Perhaps he tried, but with De Pretto dying in 1921 it was natural the spotlight went onto Einstein who was still very lively.

HiYoSilver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote: Perhaps we do not exist and contemplate as we think we do.

If by "we" you refer to yourself, perhaps. I know how I exist and how I contemplate. And I know that E=mc² is a tested relationship, such that the exponent is either two, or a number fractionally close to two.

In any case .. investigations within these discussions turn up interesting tidbits .. like Einstein being predated by two years in publishing E=MC2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/ ... orycarroll Even more interesting,the first publisher of the equation was not a physicist or mathematician, but an agronomist .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

Were De Pretto's academic credentials responsible, despite his discovery, for his near obscurity in the history of science?

Most likely because the observation was not supported by underlying theory. Others had also noted the possible comparison between kinetic energy and mass-energy equivalence. Einstein was the first to actually derive the relationship, which requires the use of principles of special relativity (also largely developed by Einstein). Guessing a formula or intuiting it does not merit the same respect as rigorously deriving it.

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote:
In any case .. investigations within these discussions turn up interesting tidbits .. like Einstein being predated by two years in publishing E=MC2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/ ... orycarroll Even more interesting,the first publisher of the equation was not a physicist or mathematician, but an agronomist .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

Were De Pretto's academic credentials responsible, despite his discovery, for his near obscurity in the history of science?

Most likely because the observation was not supported by underlying theory. Others had also noted the possible comparison between kinetic energy and mass-energy equivalence. Einstein was the first to actually derive the relationship, which requires the use of principles of special relativity (also largely developed by Einstein). Guessing a formula or intuiting it does not merit the same respect as rigorously deriving it.

I can understand your point perfectly, Chris.

In my dreams, I can imagine myself intuitively jumping at a conclusion about a relationship between factors or forces in nature that subsequently turns out to be correct.

Never in my dreams can I imagine myself deriving a mathematical relationship demonstrating the validity of a scientific theory.

Ann

HiYoSilver wrote:

sallyseaver wrote:What are the top 2 hallmarks or features of a theory on star-system formation (including planet formation) that would make you feel that the theory is worth attention and testing?

I'm really close to finalizing my book that puts forward a new theory of planet and star formation called Mass Vortex Theory. While there is still time to polish the book with final editing, I'm interested to know the top issues according to the Asterisk community that absolutely need to be answered by this theory. ... It offers a solution to dark matter to be tested. Obviously, it includes the development of a star and planet formation. What else?

10 years ago, Sally, when I proposed that Voids were filled with anti-matter, and expanding, I was seen here as a laughingstock .. however .. the idea has now been fairly well confirmed. https://www.universetoday.com/84934/ant ... expansion/ I've also proposed an alternate planet forming theory involving spheres of water like some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, etc. That also was seen as ludicrous .. yet more and more evidence show the possibility. In short, don't look to others for confirmation of new ideas. You'll be ridiculed not matter what, as were most of the major discoverers of unorthodox truth. Eventually, if you're right, you'll be proven right. And maybe new ideas will, eventually, become more acceptable as 'new ideas' rather than blasphemy against consensus, though that's been a five thousand year journey with little progress.

universetoday wrote:
" antigravity-could-replace-dark-energy-as-cause-of-universe-expansion"
Well, I think that before we talk antigravity, we should know what
gravity is.
( For me ), neither the theory of Newton, neither the General Relativity
of Einstein, they do not explain well the gravity in the Universe,
The Quantum Mechanis, neither.

saturno2 wrote: universetoday wrote:
" antigravity-could-replace-dark-energy-as-cause-of-universe-expansion"
Well, I think that before we talk antigravity, we should know what
gravity is.
( For me ), neither the theory of Newton, neither the General Relativity
of Einstein, they do not explain well the gravity in the Universe,
The Quantum Mechanics, neither.

I think that this is insightful of you, and shows that you have done some deep thinking about gravity.

I hope this means that you will be more (rather than less) interested in a new theory.

I have the beginnings of a research direction for addressing your concerns, but it will take time to develop it more fully and write it up. I am torn about trying to say more, but in the interest of time and knowing that partial presentation can lead to unhelpful criticism, I'll stop here.

--S. Seaver

sallyseaver wrote:

saturno2 wrote: universetoday wrote:
" antigravity-could-replace-dark-energy-as-cause-of-universe-expansion"
Well, I think that before we talk antigravity, we should know what
gravity is.
( For me ), neither the theory of Newton, neither the General Relativity
of Einstein, they do not explain well the gravity in the Universe,
The Quantum Mechanics, neither.

I think that this is insightful of you, and shows that you have done some deep thinking about gravity.

I hope this means that you will be more (rather than less) interested in a new theory.

I have the beginnings of a research direction for addressing your concerns, but it will take time to develop it more fully and write it up. I am torn about trying to say more, but in the interest of time and knowing that partial presentation can lead to unhelpful criticism, I'll stop here.

--S. Seaver

Well. Yes. I am more interested in a new theory about gravity, and
the unified theory of fundamental interactions of the Universe.
But this field of the Physics is very very broad and difficult,Indeed.

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote: In any case .. investigations within these discussions turn up interesting tidbits .. like Einstein being predated by two years in publishing E=MC2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/ ... orycarroll Even more interesting,the first publisher of the equation was not a physicist or mathematician, but an agronomist .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

Were De Pretto's academic credentials responsible, despite his discovery, for his near obscurity in the history of science?

Most likely because the observation was not supported by underlying theory. Others had also noted the possible comparison between kinetic energy and mass-energy equivalence. Einstein was the first to actually derive the relationship, which requires the use of principles of special relativity (also largely developed by Einstein). Guessing a formula or intuiting it does not merit the same respect as rigorously deriving it.

You underestimate what a person can know, and derive, without having letters after his name. I also doubt you read much about De Pretto. Plus, you underestimate the value of both intuition and imagination .. both of which Einstein were strong in. It's totally possible that Einstein, if not having been alerted to De Pretto's equation, may not have investigated it. If you haven't done so, you really would benefit by reading the information on De Pretto. He was a man of pure genius in many fields.

HiYoSilver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote: In any case .. investigations within these discussions turn up interesting tidbits .. like Einstein being predated by two years in publishing E=MC2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/ ... orycarroll Even more interesting,the first publisher of the equation was not a physicist or mathematician, but an agronomist .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olinto_De_Pretto

Were De Pretto's academic credentials responsible, despite his discovery, for his near obscurity in the history of science?

Most likely because the observation was not supported by underlying theory. Others had also noted the possible comparison between kinetic energy and mass-energy equivalence. Einstein was the first to actually derive the relationship, which requires the use of principles of special relativity (also largely developed by Einstein). Guessing a formula or intuiting it does not merit the same respect as rigorously deriving it.

You underestimate what a person can know, and derive, without having letters after his name. I also doubt you read much about De Pretto. Plus, you underestimate the value of both intuition and imagination .. both of which Einstein were strong in.

I do not underestimate the value of either intuition or imagination. But without following up inspiration with rigorous analysis, you do not have science, and you do not earn scientific respect.

HiYoSilver wrote:
You underestimate what a person can know, and derive, without having letters after his name. I also doubt you read much about De Pretto. Plus, you underestimate the value of both intuition and imagination .. both of which Einstein were strong in. It's totally possible that Einstein, if not having been alerted to De Pretto's equation, may not have investigated it. If you haven't done so, you really would benefit by reading the information on De Pretto. He was a man of pure genius in many fields.

Pretto's theory was based on his hypothesis that a mass traveling at velocity v has the potential energy[6] (forza viva) proportional to mv2 (the exact formula is ½mv2). In the section of his paper headed Energy of the Ether and Potential Energy in Matter, De Pretto wrote:

Matter uses and stores energy as inertia, just like a steam engine that uses the energy in steam and stores energy in inertia as potential energy[... ] All components of a body are animated by infinitesimal but rapid movements equal to perhaps the vibration of the ether. It must be concluded that the matter in any body contains the sum of the energy represented by the entire mass of that body if it could move through space with the speed of a single particle.[7]
By theorizing "vibration of the ether", De Pretto asserted that mass is vibrating energy and that mass and energy are therefore interchangeable. He then speculated that ordinary matter may be considered to be vibrating at the speed of light c.

According to De Pretto,

"The matter of any body contains within it a sum of energy represented by the entire mass of the body[... ] Nobody will easily admit that, stored in a latent state, in any kilogram of matter, completely hidden to all our investigations, hides such a sum of energy, equivalent to the amount that can be extracted from [burning] millions and millions of kilograms of coal."
½mv² versus mc²[edit]
Further information: Mass–energy equivalence § History
De Pretto used the expression {\displaystyle mv^{2}} mv^2 for the "vis viva" and the energy store within matter, where he identified v with the speed of light. His formula precedes by two years, and is in agreement with Albert Einstein's later formula {\displaystyle E=mc^{2}} E=mc^{2} for mass–energy equivalence, which was derived by Einstein as a consequence of special relativity."

HiYoSIlver wrote:Pretto's theory was based on his hypothesis that a mass traveling at velocity v has the potential energy[6] (forza viva) proportional to mv2 (the exact formula is ½mv2).

And he was not the first to make this observation.

Again, he did not properly derive the mass-energy equivalence relationship. His work was not close to the level of Einstein's.

HiYoSIlver wrote:

Pretto's theory was based on his hypothesis that a mass traveling at velocity v has the potential energy[6] (forza viva) proportional to mv2 (the exact formula is ½mv2). In the section of his paper headed Energy of the Ether and Potential Energy in Matter, De Pretto wrote:

Matter uses and stores energy as inertia, just like a steam engine that uses the energy in steam and stores energy in inertia as potential energy[... ] All components of a body are animated by infinitesimal but rapid movements equal to perhaps the vibration of the ether. It must be concluded that the matter in any body contains the sum of the energy represented by the entire mass of that body if it could move through space with the speed of a single particle.
By theorizing "vibration of the ether", De Pretto asserted that mass is vibrating energy and that mass and energy are therefore interchangeable. He then speculated that ordinary matter may be considered to be vibrating at the speed of light c.

Dear HiYoSilver

I appreciate learning about De Pretto. I don't think he did too badly. From Wikipedia: "In 1906 De Pretto was accepted as a member of Accademia dei Lincei, a scientific organization whose members included Galileo Galilei. The director of the organization, Ernesto Mancini, was also a member of The Royal Society of London, an international scientific society. Mancini submitted De Pretto's paper to the Royal Society for international recognition. It was received favorably and was listed in the Society's International Catalogue of Scientific Literature." (emphasis mine)

I hope you recognize that Einstein only had a bachelor's degree when his 3 famous articles were accepted for publication in 1905... and he was working as a patent clerk, not at a university as a professor (or post-doc). This would NEVER happen today, where the competition among people with degrees and professorships to be published is fierce.

It is the case that Einstein was able to do a lot more than just the famous mass-energy equivalence formula. I think that his initial reputation was made via an article on brownian motion.

As you probably saw, the first response to my question was someone saying that my new theory would not get attention unless it was in a peer-reviewed journal. There is no surprise in that. I don't think there is much disagreement about the belief that serious theoretical work only comes out of academic institutions where people devote their professional life to advancing knowledge. Every once in a while, there is a happy meeting between someone who is on the inside who can give a hand out to someone on the outside as was the case with the Indian mathematician portrayed in the recent movie "The Man Who Knew Infinity." What I am hoping for is that enough people on the outside will create a buzz that will get my theory an honest hearing by the people on the inside. Also, I think it will help when the JUNO team reports the ice layer that my theory predicts.

Keep thinking and working on scientific understanding. Thank you for your openness and understanding.

S. Seaver

I am wondering

sallyseaver wrote:
Dear HiYoSilver

I appreciate learning about De Pretto. I don't think he did too badly. From Wikipedia: "In 1906 De Pretto was accepted as a member of Accademia dei Lincei, a scientific organization whose members included Galileo Galilei. The director of the organization, Ernesto Mancini, was also a member of The Royal Society of London, an international scientific society. Mancini submitted De Pretto's paper to the Royal Society for international recognition. It was received favorably and was listed in the Society's International Catalogue of Scientific Literature." (emphasis mine)

I hope you recognize that Einstein only had a bachelor's degree when his 3 famous articles were accepted for publication in 1905... and he was working as a patent clerk, not at a university as a professor (or post-doc). This would NEVER happen today, where the competition among people with degrees and professorships to be published is fierce.

It is the case that Einstein was able to do a lot more than just the famous mass-energy equivalence formula. I think that his initial reputation was made via an article on brownian motion.

As you probably saw, the first response to my question was someone saying that my new theory would not get attention unless it was in a peer-reviewed journal. There is no surprise in that. I don't think there is much disagreement about the belief that serious theoretical work only comes out of academic institutions where people devote their professional life to advancing knowledge. Every once in a while, there is a happy meeting between someone who is on the inside who can give a hand out to someone on the outside as was the case with the Indian mathematician portrayed in the recent movie "The Man Who Knew Infinity." What I am hoping for is that enough people on the outside will create a buzz that will get my theory an honest hearing by the people on the inside. Also, I think it will help when the JUNO team reports the ice layer that my theory predicts.

Keep thinking and working on scientific understanding. Thank you for your openness and understanding.

S. Seaver

I am wondering

Hi Sally .. as you know quantum advances in technology are happening as we speak resulting in huge leaps in knowledge .. but acceptance of change can be slow. The normal process seems to be, if a paper is received well by some reviewers, others will jump on it as blasphemy to the norm .. so once your is published be prepared for a furious onslaught.

sallyseaver wrote:
Dear HiYoSilver

... ... ...

Keep thinking and working on scientific understanding. Thank you for your openness and understanding.

S. Seaver

I am wondering

Sally, While you are wondering, I think by your nature you may find interesting this piece. “if life is sustained by syntropy, the
parameters of the autonomic nervous systems that supports vital functions should react in advance
to stimuli.” And indeed an impressive number of studies have now shown that the autonomic
nervous system (as measured by skin conductance and heart rate) can react before a stimuli is
shown. The first experimental study of this kind was conducted by Dean Radin and monitored heart
rate, skin conductance, and fingertip blood volume in subjects who were shown a blank screen for
five seconds followed by a randomly selected calm or emotional picture for three seconds. Radin
found significant differences in the autonomic parameters preceding the exposure to emotional
pictures versus the calm pictures (A review of the experiments and the description of four
experiments conducted by the authors can be found in “Retrocausality: experiments and theory,”
Vannini and Di Corpo, 2011)."

From: https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.d ... ementa.pdf

sallyseaver wrote:
Keep thinking and working on scientific understanding. Thank you for your openness and understanding.

S. Seaver

I am wondering

Another fascinating piece from that url. "... the syntropy hypothesis suggests that the increase in the rate of expansion of
the universe would not be due to the effect of dark energy or to any mysterious anti-gravitational
force, but rather to the fact that time is slowing down. In June 2012, Professors José Senovilla,
Marc Mars and Raül Vera of the University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, and the University of
Salamanca, Spain, published a paper in the journal Physical Review D in which they dismiss dark
energy as fiction. Senovilla says that the acceleration is an illusion caused by time itself gradually
slowing down. The team proposed that there is no such thing as dark energy at all and that we have
been fooled into thinking the expansion of the universe is accelerating, when in reality, time itself is
slowing down."

I won't post anything else from that url for your interest. I'm sure you have enough to do.

I don't have the time to look into tired time.

BDanielMayfield wrote:I don't have the time to look into tired time.

We'll know it's worth investing some study time when it passes sufficient peer review in mainstream journals and acquires a degree of consensus as a viable theory. A good rule for all non-specialists.

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:I don't have the time to look into tired time.

We'll know it's worth investing some study time when it passes sufficient peer review in mainstream journals and acquires a degree of consensus as a viable theory. A good rule for all non-specialists.

You've decided that someone else is smarter than you Chris?

HiYoSilver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

BDanielMayfield wrote:I don't have the time to look into tired time.

We'll know it's worth investing some study time when it passes sufficient peer review in mainstream journals and acquires a degree of consensus as a viable theory. A good rule for all non-specialists.

You've decided that someone else is smarter than you Chris?

It's not about smartness, it's about knowledge. It's about making good use of experts to vet information in areas that we ourselves are not experts in. Otherwise we'll just be consumed by information overload.

Chris Peterson wrote:

HiYoSilver wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote: We'll know it's worth investing some study time when it passes sufficient peer review in mainstream journals and acquires a degree of consensus as a viable theory. A good rule for all non-specialists.

You've decided that someone else is smarter than you Chris?

It's not about smartness, it's about knowledge. It's about making good use of experts to vet information in areas that we ourselves are not experts in. Otherwise we'll just be consumed by information overload.

I was told the definition of expert is: 'a has been drop of water under pressure.' (ex spurt .. )

Seriously though science should be about investigating .. not following a leader. Suit yourself though.